Premier Parking Enforcement LTD.

swoodworm

Im after some help against Walton Wilkins, I took the case to the IAS but was dismissed. Basically I used one of his car parks to get to my autistic son who had been violently assaulted, phone stolen and taken to the local police station. I thought my mitigation circumstances would be enough as I viewed this as an emergency and a naïve hope that compassion would be shown over profit, until I researched his name :-(. Anyway I paid for parking but I was literally an inch over the line of the other bay (not paying attention under the circumstances I guess) the bay I parked over also had a Pillar behind which would make parking extremely difficult (even the IAS confirmed this but still dismissed my claim)

One thing I have noticed and the IAS never picked up on although I mentioned it in the Adjudication is the sign they point out near ish to my car is just a light blog then they submitted a pdf of there T&C's with Premier Parking Logistics on although the membership with the IPC is now trading as Premier Parking Enforcement. Would this be enough to win a court case against him?

Fruitcake

I do hope your son is okay.

It will depend on what the judge thinks, the name on the signs at the material time, WW's trading name/company name at the material time, the name of the company on the contract with or flowing from the landowner, and the length of the piece of string you provide as evidence.

There will also be many other points upon which you should be able to rely.
Get photos of the site and signage as they are now, and see if there are any historic images on Google Streetview that might help.

Please also tell us the location of the alleged event as it may have cropped up here before.
Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it's never too late to do so.

swoodworm

Thanks for taking time to reply, the car park was 16/29 Allison Street 1/4 Coventry street B5 5LT . The Paper Mill Digbeth - graffiti street art - Donald Trum… | Flickr , Where the grey car is is exactly where I parked with my wheels an inch over the white line of the bay with the Pillar at the back. I have contacted my local MP and will try and find the landowner?

Fruitcake

I've had a look on Google Streetview but unfortunately the camera car didn't go into the indoor car park. However, your Flickr photo is quite good. It shows no signs near the parking space, the nearest one being on a brick pier to the right. It's also obvious that the wording on the sign is cluttered and in tiny font, meaning it is inadequate and incapable for forming a contract with a motorist.

Now, you have some homework. Get some more photos, (you only need a few) including the entrance that doesn't appear to have a sign about parking terms nor warning drivers to check signs inside.
You should also get a photo showing the parking space, and by carefully positioning yourself, with the sign hidden by one of the white pillars  which is exactly how it would appear to a driver upon entering the car park.
Also get a photo of the sign from a car length away. This should be good enough to show it can't be read from that distance.
Get photos of any signs that are damaged, dirty, unreadable, or obscured

Next, look up Jopson v Homeguard, case number B9GF0A9E. The judgment is available online, and you should pay particular attention to the judge's comments around paragraphs 19 and 20 where he said that attending to a vicissitude of some short duration is not parking. I would suggest that attending to a frightened, injured person would constitute a vicissitude of some short duration.
This was an appeal case so is persuasive on the lower courts should it get that far.

Then, have a look at the Equality Act 2010. Service providers (I hate calling unregulated parking companies that) are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for people with protected characteristics and must anticipate their needs.
I would suggest that your son has protected characteristics as defined by the Act, and requires reasonable adjustments to be made such as needing more time to get about, especially having been injured in an attack. The PPC should have anticipated that need, and failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the Act, and a criminal offence.
Continuing to pursue you once they were made aware of your son's condition would in my opinion constitute direct discrimination, which is a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence.

All this should be directed to the landowner in your complaints.

Regular contributor @Umkomaas often posts these suggestions for identifying a landowner.

1. Google searches

2. If a retail park, check on any signage which lists the on-site outlets

3. Ask retailers on the site if there is a managing agent

4. Ask retailers on the site to whom do they pay rent

5. Contact the local authority and ask who pays the non-domestic/business rate for the car park (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website)

6. Contact the local Valuation Office and ask if they know. They often have a website which might provide the information 

7. Contact The Land Registry and for around £3 they should be able to provide definitive detail

8. If you haven't already done so, give us the name of the car park/site/location, we may have seen other cases there. 

Ignore debt collectors, and come back to this thread if you get a Letter of/Before Claim or a court claim from the Northampton CNBC.

1505grandad

Just a thought  -  perhaps also a close up photo for the forum to see who the contract has allegedly been made with?

swoodworm

Thanks for this, very very useful information, I have been through the IPC code of conduct and I think they fail on so many things all of which the IAS have ignored.

I have found who purchased the building but not the landowner, could it be the same person? If so looks like they would be friends. Land registry site show nothing for the addresses.

I told the IAS about my sons condition and I can show proof, plus gave them the investigating officer email address but all was dismissed. Hopefully with the backing of my local MP this will be enough to stop anymore escalation.

If this ever went to court (which I am willing to do) and even if I lost, with the mitigation situation im positive the press would love my story.

swoodworm

These are what they sent to the IAS 

swoodworm

As you can see all have the old company name on, all I questioned with the IAS but was ignored 

swoodworm

I my eyes they have said to the IAS I have entered a contract with Premier Parking Logistics who are no longer a member of the IPC or IAS as company is now trading as Premier Parking Enforcement

Coupon-mad

swoodworm said:

I my eyes they have said to the IAS I have entered a contract with Premier Parking Logistics who are no longer a member of the IPC or IAS as company is now trading as Premier Parking Enforcement

Indeed.  A killer point.  Shows what a farce the IAS is.

swoodworm

Yeah, funny how similar the IPC and IAS websites are and how close the logo of PPE, PPL are to the IPC logo 🤔. PPL and PPE online payment system does not work making you have to pay via Phone. Hmmm lack of paper trail would be my guess, still another point to add.